Some kind of intelligent entity with power comparable to what we would consider a god? Perhaps. Personally, I certainly wouldn't rule it out until we understand a hell of a lot more about how the universe works. For all we know, we're in a simulation and the programmers of that simulation are our "gods".

>>35281612Do you have any objective proof that God exists- do you have knowledge, which is demonstrable, that God exists?No?So you have faithWhat's the definition of faith?"strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."Is faith a reliable method for reaching the truth? Has faith, as it is defined in the theistic sense, proven to be a reliable method for reaching the truth in chemistry/physics/etc.?

No. Faith is not a reliable process, you should not rely on it for your world view.

>>35282194therefore*>>35281612Btw, since it hasn't been pointed out, your argument is a strawman of atheism- do you have any proof to justify that even a significant portion of atheists seriously believe in a multiverse?

If I don't collect stamps that doesn't mean you can infer a bunch of other information about me and then argue against my imagined stances on other issues.

>believes in multiverse theory, parallel universes, eternal reocurrence, etc.Mathematically proven>but still finds the idea of a supreme intelligence absurdNot mathematically proven, humans are the only animal that claim this belief

>>35282851>Every atheist country blah blah consequentialist bullshitHas it occurred to you that intellectual integrity is more important than the consequences of your beliefs?

If a principle/fact/theory is valid, any negative effects it has to society DO NOT INVALIDATE THE PRINCIPLE/THEORY.

I'm not going to become a creationist tomorrow if it will increase my happiness by 10%. I could press a button that would provide everyone with the knowledge about the origins of the universe/reality of God, and it made them 50% less happy? I'd fucking press it, twice if I had to- objective reality (science, math, etc.) should not be cast aside for the sake of consequences.

>>35282889>Not mathematically proven, humans are the only animal that claim this beliefDo you seriously think that other animals have any knowledge of chemistry, physics, logic, or any other sphere of human achievement?

>>35283234>Why can't you just let retards have a monopoly on the public discourseI would love to live in a society where retards saying retarded things isn't possibly life threatening to me, but the fact is they vote.

OP is correct, intelligent design is logically more likely than whatever it is atheists believe by miles. Fedoras btfo

But OP I has question. How do you reconcile the concept that time is infinite with intelligent design. I've been thinking about it for a while and if I can resolve this is will surely tip the scale far in favor of ID

>>35283437>Intelligent design>Humans can choke on their food>Dolphins have separate tubes for breathing and eatingYou literally believe that the most evolved being has never evolved, is both omniscient and omnipotent- this is contradictory. If you are all-knowing, that implies you already know what your actions are (and therefore can not change them). God is a logically contradictory being, and "whatever atheists believe" can not be inferred by the fact that they don't think an undetectable being which has no mass, energy, or influence in the universe created all the mass, energy, and beings in the universe.

>>35283510If people have erroneous beliefs I will correct them, if you believe 2+2=5 I'll try and correct you even if it means that you lose a significant comfort in your life/more likely to commit suicide.

>>35283546>I ask "when did I claim to be you">You reply "because that reply was shameful."Nigger, you're retarded.

>>35283701>I'll try and correct you even if it means that you lose a significant comfort in your life/more likely to commit suicide.And if people don't want to be "corrected"?You are admittedly more interested in spreading your view of "truth" than in the well-being of those you are spreading it to, it seems that you are far more fanatical than most religious people who generally don't give a shit what others believe.

>>35283816>And if people don't want to be "corrected"?If you claim any kind of authority or knowledge you are open to being corrected if your beliefs are irrational or inconsistent, it doesn't matter whether or not you "want to be corrected", are you some kind of tumblr feminist who thinks you can only correct irrational people if they ask for your advice?>you are admittedly more interested in spreading your view of "truth" I am more interested in spreading the truth as best as I can. I am open-minded, if you have proof I am more than willing to consider it. The thing is, theists don't have a single shred of proof, beyond things like "miracles" which have to be taken on faith.> most religious people who generally don't give a shit what others believe.Which is why they imply that their children will be disowned if they don't attend church like good little goyim.

I didn't imply it in the sense that God (I'm only going to use that word because it's easy, not to be confused with the magic man in the bible) created the universe completely without flaw. I am arguing that a power beyond human comprehension is responsible for the origin of the universe as well as the origin of life. As I believe it to be evolution is simply the nature of God. God is simply something that could never possibly conceived by humans, and I think the likelihood of the universe and life both being complete accidents both within the same universe is much less likely. That's why I asked the time question. Because of an infinite timeline there could conceivably be infinite universes that were completely incidental and came from literal nothing, but having life exist within the same universe is unlikely. But on an infinite timeline I suppose it would happen eventually. I could type a big long euphoric post if you'd like. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I think ID is more probable

>>35283907Theists do not claim to have an opinion that "I like to think God is real", at least that is not the general trend.

Theists say (to their children especially) God is real, take it on faith, etc.

Atheists do not believe God exists, this is because, as I will claim, there is no empirical proof or logical necessity for a God. Atheists see that theistic arguments for a God are invalid, their other beliefs are irrelevant to the validity of this point.

>>35284093First of all, I don't know which you're replying to.>I am arguing that a power beyond human comprehension>Arguing about aspects of a being you claim is beyond human comprehensionYou realize that calling something beyond comprehension and then assuming certain traits about it makes you look like a fucking moron, right?

>evolution is simply the nature of God. Yay for undefined terms that make God sound mysterious and cool :D

> I think the likelihood of the universe and life both being complete accidents both within the same universe is much less likely.You are neither a biologist or a physicist, there have been compelling cases for a fine-tuned universe without a God. As far as biology goes, look up the Miller apparatus. Clearly, you need to do more research on the topic if you expect anyone to give two shits what you say after "I think". >I could type a big long euphoric post if you'd like. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying I think ID is more probableOkay, well, sadly intelligent design isn't a recognized scientific theory (which is essentially an explanation).>>35284200The real truth about square circles? They're logically contradictory and can not exist.

>Inb4 agnostic bullshit about another universe we know nothing aboutIF WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT, WHY ARE YOU ASSUMING YOU KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT IT?

If an assertion is logically inconsistent and has no empirical evidence, it can be discarded without evidence- just like unicorns, Santa, and invisible teapots orbiting your tiny fucking head.

>>35283945>If you claim any kind of authority or knowledge you are open to being corrected if your beliefs are irrational or inconsistent, it doesn't matter whether or not you "want to be corrected", are you some kind of tumblr feminist who thinks you can only correct irrational people if they ask for your advice?>muh tumblrI'm mere pointing out that you achieve nothing and only piss people off if you start pontificating to them. You can go and say "hey look at all this fossil evidence, morpology, and genetic similarities, you can't deny this!" and they still wont listen. Just as you would ignore any religious person who attempts to convert you.

>I am more interested in spreading the truth as best as I can.The same could be said of Jehovah's witnesses, and they would be just as sincere. If you want to forward "truth" in a scientific sense, then go into research and actually contribute rather than being an advocate for science, because you'll find that neither the theists or the people actually working in scientific research appreciate your efforts.

>The thing is, theists don't have a single shred of proof, beyond things like "miracles" which have to be taken on faith.Have you even read introductory apologetics? Believe me, priests were the most educated and critical people in the West for a long, long, time and they aren't the type to simply take things solely on blind faith without discussion and exploration.

>Which is why they imply that their children will be disowned if they don't attend church like good little goyim.I'm going to assume you're talking about US "Christians", just bear in mind that they left Yurope because even the religious people there thought they were batshit insane. You'll find most Catholic, Orthodox, and non-US protestant denominations are far more reasonable.

>>35281612>Implying I haven't been crafting my spirit to ascend mortality upon my death>Implying I'm not using multiverse theory to launch myself into the one reality where I am reborn as a God>Implying I'm not already waiting for my death to come (the rules stated are that I must never commit suicide, and dying in battle or for a worthy cause will aid me)>Implying I won't cling to that 1/infinity chance that my soul will be anchored to the proper reality where I reign supreme>Implying I won't lead mankind into a new era through reverence, fear, and unification under one God

I'm more than aware of multiverse and string theory. I'm also aware of how fragile the laws of physics are when multiverse theory is in play.I am ascending upon death, Imperial. Can you say the same?

>>35284223You have no idea what you're replying to, do you?I'm going to assume you don't know the difference between deductive and inductive methods of proof, and the relative strengths of each. Which leads me to believe you know very little about the very foundation of science as a tool for investigation.

>>35284450>You realize that calling something beyond comprehension and then assuming certain traits about it makes you look like a fucking moron, right?Not at all, you wouldn't presume to have an exhaustive list of the characteristics of a particular boulder but you can still state that it's composed of basalt rock for example.

>>35284450I'm not going to get into a little nit-pick battle on the internet with someone who's looking for me to write a Phd thesis to even give my post any credence. But I have an offer, my euphoric friend. Explain to me how the universe and life came to exist, and I will buy you a shiny new fedora

>>35284560>I'm mere pointing out that you achieve nothing and only piss people off if you start pontificating to themI am not stating my opinion as fact, as theists do, I do not claim absolute knowledge about the origins of the universe but I certainly don't think it was due to a God/gods. > You can go and say "hey look at all this fossil evidence, morpology, and genetic similarities, you can't deny this!" and they still wont listen. Just as you would ignore any religious person who attempts to convert you.Theists ignore evidence that contradicts their beliefs that were formed in order to fit in with their family and community? What a surprise! Doesn't mean I shouldn't try and correct them. I really don't hate theists, but I have to live in a world where they have a huge influence and I would like to lessen the influence of religion. >The same could be said of Jehovah's witnesses, and they would be just as sincere. But I actually formulate my beliefs based on their adherence to logic and empirical evidence- none of my beliefs are based on a process as irrational as faith (in the religious sense).>If you want to forward "truth" in a scientific senseI'd like people to stop asserting that they know God exists, because they actually don't- sorry for being so unreasonable.>Believe me, priests were the most educated and critical people in the West for a long, long, time and they aren't the type to simply take things solely on blind faith without discussion and exploration. Yes, because they definitely had options like declaring themselves to be atheists. There were almost no capitalists in Soviet Russia, and almost no atheists in medieval Europe, as far as we know.

>>35281612In a nutshell, the difference between the situations is that the former ones assume very little but explain a lot, but "God" (usually, depends on how it's defined) assumes very much when explaining proportionally little - and often contradicts with empirical evidence with its explanations.

>>35284572I know you're kidding, but I'd like to further expound on why agnosticism is retarded.

Basically, the principle of agnosticism is:Even if something is logically consistent and has no objective proof/empirical evidence to support it, it can not be refuted without significant evidence because it might exist (in some other universe or some shit that we know nothing about). While this clearly doesn't make sense because it's assuming knowledge about the unknowable (the qualities of other universities), the definition of non-existence s not existing in this universe (no detectable mass, energy, etc.)

If you apply the principles of agnosticism to any given invisible/undetectable inanimate objects you will quickly be surrounded by floating teapots, pencils, dildos, etc.>>35284760>God is beyond comprehension>But I still know stuff about GodSo God isn't beyond comprehension?

Very well then, if previous observations don't give you any indication about truth whatsoever, then put your money where your mouth is and go to a witch doctor the next time you break your leg. You won't, because just like post-modernist bullshitters, pseudo-intellectuals don't care about actual reality, you only care about your theoretical world you can manipulate with semantic horseshit

>>35285065"My idea"? I am merely arguing that theism is unsubstantiated and logically inconsistent, I do not feel obligated to bind myself to any theories about the origins of the universe in order to discredit what can euphemistically be called arguments for a "Creator".

>>35285117I am saying that it's moronic for him to state God has certain properties, but is also beyond comprehension... Are you agreeing with me?

>>35284814>Theists ignore evidence that contradicts their beliefs that were formed in order to fit in with their family and community? What a surprise! Doesn't mean I shouldn't try and correct them.Why should you try to correct them, are you a missionary for the one true faith of empiricism?If somebody wishes to learn about science, they will do so without your badgering. If they don't care to examine the evidence, no amount of badgering will convince them to.

Now of course I'd say the same for you, as you are clearly unwilling to put time into studying theology.

>I really don't hate theists, but I have to live in a world where they have a huge influence and I would like to lessen the influence of religion. >a huge influenceYou seem to be a few decades behind anon, secularism is the new black and religious icons are prohibited in government buildings.

>But I actually formulate my beliefs based on their adherence to logic and empirical evidence- none of my beliefs are based on a process as irrational as faith (in the religious sense).>but they're WROOONNNG!!They may say the same thing about you, science is not without it's flaws and I'm sure some Jehovah's witnesses would see your devotion to empirical evidence that you have never observed yourself is basically faith, in a pseudo-religious sense, in the honesty and infallibility of scientists purporting to have made these observations.

>I'd like people to stop asserting that they know God exists, because they actually don't- sorry for being so unreasonable.I'd like people to stop doing a great many things, but annoying people who don't want to argue with me isn't the way to stop them, it will just cause them to stubbornly carry on with their assertions out of spite.

>because they definitely had options like declaring themselves to be atheists.Are you honestly arguing that atheists would willingly and voluntarily become priests?

>>35284981>So God isn't beyond comprehension?The whole of God is beyond comprehension.You can't possibly comprehend everything happening at one moment within a city of 3 millions people, but you can certainly know certain things about it (how many cars pass you while you're driving to work, how much a coffee costs at a certain cafe, etc.).

>>35285030I'm not dismissing inductive reasoning as a method determining facts, I'm simply saying it isn't the ONLY method by which we can obtain knowledge.

I am far from post-modernist, logic is a very, very, old field and the scientific method and a strong focus on empiricism are recent developments. If anything I'm a luddite.Whereas you are simply a fool with a pleb's understanding of the foundations of knowledge and science itself who still persists in making shit-tier analogies about something he doesn't understand.

>>35285314>Now of course I'd say the same for you, as you are clearly unwilling to put time into studying theology.Do you realize how many theologies there are?Do I have to intensely study Norse mythology in order to say "I don't believe in Odin, and I can say that because I spent countless hours reading one-thousand year old assertions about the existence of Thor", etc.?

Theists love to say that you can't refute their specific brand of stupidity unless you've read all their literature on the subject. >>35285453You're equivocating unknowable information with information that is extremely impractical to know (everything 3 million people are doing). It is possible to know what everyone is doing, it's just probably not going to happen.>You seem to be a few decades behind anon, secularism is the new black and religious icons are prohibited in government buildings.Yeah, but they're okay in the pledge of allegiance, state constitutions, and currency.>They may say the same thing about you, science is not without it's flaws and I'm sure some Jehovah's witnesses would see your devotion to empirical evidence that you have never observed yourself is basically faith,I have observed objective reality, which is consistent (logical), and although I have not seen a Miller apparatus run from start to finish I am confident that with my prior experience/proof in the methods of science that it's not some massive conspiracy. >in the honesty and infallibility of scientists purporting to have made these observations.It doesn't matter if scientists are honest, I could repeat their experiments myself if I wanted to.>Are you honestly arguing that atheists would willingly and voluntarily become priests?I am arguing that it was a death sentence to be anything BUT a Christian for much of recent European history.

>>35285585Not really, it's a line of thought that has been going for millenia.Hell even Plato explored it in great detail with "muh cave", if idealism is mental gymnastics then the same can be said about most Western thought up until the 16th century.

Not taking a side here, and also not very knowledgeable on the topic, but I has 2 question.

1. Some are saying that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of god. Then can we say justice exists? Can justice be scientifically proven? Or how about morality? If so, how does science prove them?

2. If we undoubtedly knew that event X is going to occur, but the time between now and X is infinite. Can we say that this event will ever happen?

>>35285465The book of Christ is a formalisation of what empathy needs to be. You may be born with empathy for cute animals but this needs to grow for greater morality. It is book of advanced ultimate morality that turns boys into men. It can help in many ways those that are born good but raised bitter, for example. It allows confidence in your morality in order to do great things. It seems you are not trolling, so here is a emotional video.

An Unforgettable Act of Forgiveness in Court - by the Father of a Murder Victim https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIkywrKVWAo

One can expect the women to be careful and kind but see for yourself their hate consuming them, that the man is the one who shows solid Christianity. He sure did his homework. I hope you think of this.

>>352858471. Some are saying that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of god. Then can we say justice exists? Can justice be scientifically proven? Or how about morality? If so, how does science prove them?Theories of what justice is can be logically consistent (they are universally applicable and don't contradict themselves), but they do not exist in objective reality. Theories of justice should conform with the laws of logic which are the result of a consistent universe, but justice can not be scientifically proven.

The same goes for theories of morality. Nietzche kind of threw that whole objective morality thing out the window, so we're only left with theories of morality that are consistent- unless you're some faggot that believes in Platonic forms. 2. If we undoubtedly knew that event X is going to occur, but the time between now and X is infinite. Can we say that this event will ever happen?If the event is being delayed infinitely, then I would not argue that it would ever occur.

>>35286044Again, all im trying to say is that there is no need for a God, Gods, or books for morality, sure yes, it gives you good morals, and tells you how to use them, but it did create morals, nor did it change them, there will be heathens with more moral than theist, and there will be theist more moral than heathens.

>>35285760>Do you realize how many theologies there are?I do, and I wouldn't go out of my way to call them bullshit without at least reading into them to get the opposing side of the argument.You don't have to become a hermit and study all religious writings from a specific faith, but some introductory apologetics would be the minimum in terms of due diligence before making an assertion relating to it.

>specific brand of stupidityHow can you be sure of it's stupidity if you're just lumping it in with other, usually quite distinct, faiths?

>You're equivocating unknowable information with information that is extremely impractical to know (everything 3 million people are doing). It is possible to know what everyone is doing, it's just probably not going to happen.I'd argue it is not possible for a man to know what 3 million people are doing at a given time, the same applies to God. Perhaps we can theoretically know it but they are both impossible in practice.

>Yeah, but they're okay in the pledge of allegiance, state constitutions, and currency.Apparently, such is democracy.I don't agree with anti-gun laws, but if the constitution was amended overnight through democratic channels to remove the 2nd amendment I'd simply have to accept that muh guns are now illegal.

>I have observed objective reality, which is consistent (logical), and although I have not seen a Miller apparatus run from start to finish I am confident that with my prior experience/proof in the methods of science that it's not some massive conspiracy. >I have observed objective reality.That is a very bold claim anon, as even mild color-blindness could vary your subjective observations.What you are saying, in a roundabout way, is that you have faith in the honesty and ability of scientists to determine objective fact. Faith in human honesty is the same whether it's in the authors of a physics textbook or a 2000-ish year old collection of religious texts.

>>35285760>It doesn't matter if scientists are honest, I could repeat their experiments myself if I wanted to.You have faith that you can repeat their experiments, but until you have done so you are simply taking their word. Which isn't a bad thing in itself as we all rely on others for information, but is a common trait with those who believe their preacher.

>I am arguing that it was a death sentence to be anything BUT a Christian for much of recent European history.And that's in no way relevant to my point of priests being educated and curious people who have spend centuries discussing and arguing over religious beliefs.

>>35286269>I do, and I wouldn't go out of my way to call them bullshit without at least reading into them to get the opposing side of the argument.Assertions without evidence can be discarded without evidence.>You don't have to become a hermit and study all religious writings from a specific faith, but some introductory apologetics would be the minimum in terms of due diligence before making an assertion relating to it.There are over 10,000 gods/God/deities, I do not have to study every single one to conclude that there is not objective evidence for any of them. >How can you be sure of it's stupidity if you're just lumping it in with other, usually quite distinct, faiths?>distinctYeah, no. They almost all presume the most evolved being that has never evolved, all powerful, and all knowing- these properties alone are logically inconsistent and there isn't objective proof for any particular religion that I've heard of, if there was, there'd be a recognized scientific theory dedicated to it. >I'd argue it is not possible for a man to know what 3 million people are doing at a given time, the same applies to God. Nope, God is considered to be undetectable (that, or non-existent), so large amounts of detectable information =/= infinite amount of undetectable information.

>I don't agree with anti-gun laws, but if the constitution was amended overnight through democratic channels to remove the 2nd amendment I'd simply have to accept that muh guns are now illegal.Pussy>That is a very bold claim anon, as even mild color-blindness could vary your subjective observations.Any accurate spectrometer/other device will give you consistent and readings. There is an objective reality, biological variation in our eyes do not invalidate the concept of infrared light/objective reality. Once again, are are equivocating religious and secular faith- religious faith is in spite of or without proof.

>>35286356>You have faith that you can repeat their experimentsActually no, I took AP Chemistry in highschool>And that's in no way relevant to my point of priests being educated and curious people who have spend centuries discussing and arguing over religious beliefs.Yes it is. You're saying that they were religious solely because they concluded it was rational. Not only are you appealing to authority, but you are also ignoring huge practical factors that would prevent priests from announcing the fact that they have abandoned their irrational faith in a creator.

If a multiverse exists then God must exist, because if there are infinitely many universes, there must be at least one in which a species or intelligence learned to influence other universes, and that would be recognized as a god.

>Something might exist outside of our universe>Therefore you can't say it doesn't exist>Even though I don't know anything about what is outside of your universeExisting outside of your universe= nonexistence. If something does not have matter/energy/detectable influence in YOUR universe then it does, but definition, not exist.

>>35286570>Assertions without evidence can be discarded without evidence.You say this but if you don't read into the faith you are discarding, you are simply assuming there is no evidence and arguing from a position of ignorance.

A young-Earth creationist might say the same thing, simply because they've never bothered to read into the evidence that contradicts their worldview.

>There are over 10,000 gods/God/deities, I do not have to study every single one to conclude that there is not objective evidence for any of them. Actually, you do. At least to have a convincing argument.

There are over 10,000 studies claiming evolution occurred on Earth, I don't have to read every single one to conclude there is no compelling evidence for any of them.

Again, you are taking your ignorance of any evidence as proof that there is none.

>Yeah, no. They almost all presume the most evolved being that has never evolved, all powerful, and all knowing- these properties alone are logically inconsistent and there isn't objective proof for any particular religion that I've heard of, if there was, there'd be a recognized scientific theory dedicated to it. Many religions don't even touch on the subject of human evolution, you are simply building a strawman of thousands of distinct systems of belief and dismissing them all with a single wave of the hand.

>if there was, there'd be a recognized scientific theory dedicated to it. You are assuming here, you don't want to do the legwork to check so you assume "if it was there, I'd have heard of it. Therefore it isn't there".

>Nope, God is considered to be undetectable (that, or non-existent), so large amounts of detectable information =/= infinite amount of undetectable information. I never mentioned detectable properties, I mentioned knowable properties.

>>35287072>You say this but if you don't read into the faith you are discardingIf there is objective evidence for any faith I am open to correction by any proponent of said faith, except there isn't any objective proof for the existence of any prime mover/creator/etc.

If even the deist position is untenable, there is no way that any theist position, which takes an even greater leap of faith, can be correct.>There are over 10,000 studies claiming evolution occurred on Earth, I don't have to read every single one to conclude there is no compelling evidence for any of them.Except if you read even one you'd see there's objective/empirical evidence and accurate observations. If you doubt this, you could repeat the experiment, prove them wrong, and maybe win some recognition.>Many religions don't even touch on the subject of human evolutionI am saying that they all presume God is the most evolved being that has never evolved, sorry you're too stupid to understand that without me spelling that out for you.

>You are assuming here, you don't want to do the legwork to check so you assume "if it was there, I'd have heard of it. Therefore it isn't there".I am open to correction, please enlighten me as to this logically consistent and inerrant theistic theory. >But anon, square circles do exist in other realities. It's already been stated that multiverse theory would give rise to differentiations in the laws if physics if it were to be proven true.First of all, you don't know they exist in other realities- the multiverse theory isn't certain.

Second of all, just because you aren't a faggot in another universe doesn't mean you'll stop being one in the one I am talking to you in.

>>35286570There is an objective reality, biological variation in our eyes do not invalidate the concept of infrared light/objective reality.I agree completely, but you have not seen an objective reality, you have simply deduced it from secondary information.

>Once again, are are equivocating religious and secular faith- religious faith is in spite of or without proof.When you haven't poured over all the proof, it is functionally the same thing.

>Actually no, I took AP Chemistry in highschoolWell shit, you are really equipped to make sweeping statements about evolutionary biology or theoretical physics.A few redox reactions is far from comprehensive anon, and largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

>Yes it is. You're saying that they were religious solely because they concluded it was rational.I never said this, they already believed and later concluded that such belief is not irrational.

> Not only are you appealing to authority,A rather relevant authority I hope you'll agree. If a man who spends his life studying the ins and outs of theology comes to the conclusion that it is rational that surely means more than someone who scans a few wikipedia articles and decides that every single religion on Earth is irrational.

> but you are also ignoring huge practical factors that would prevent priests from announcing the fact that they have abandoned their irrational faith in a creator.Perhaps, but surely one who has abandoned their faith would simply leave the priesthood? Obviously without mentioning their atheism but with another excuse.

>>35287316The point is if multiverse was proven correct, it'd throw the concept of static physics and rigid theorem right out the window.Which is the whole point of the thread, if an element of chaos is observed where order is abject or illusional, the standards set in place could be overthrown or overcome.

>>35287482>When you haven't poured over all the proof, it is functionally the same thing.Secular faith is about observing patterns/past experienceReligious faith has none of those redeeming qualities. Open a dictionary, thanks.>Well shit, you are really equipped to make sweeping statements about evolutionary biology or theoretical physics.A few redox reactions is far from comprehensive anon, and largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.You claimed I had no proof that the experiments by the collective scientific world were repeatable, which was obviously bullshit, sorry for calling you out.>I never said this, they already believed and later concluded that such belief is not irrational.And if they had concluded that theism was irrational they would not state that because their life would be ruined/ended.>A rather relevant authority I hope you'll agree. If a man who spends his life studying the ins and outs of theology comes to the conclusion that it is rational that surely means more than someone who scans a few wikipedia articles and decides that every single religion on Earth is irrational.>Appealing to authority this hardWow, what a surprise! People that enter into theology that they already accept in a time when contradicting said theology is a death sentence come to the conclusion, ostensibly, that theology is logical! WOW WHAT A FUCKING SURPRISE >Perhaps, but surely one who has abandoned their faith would simply leave the priesthood? Obviously without mentioning their atheism but with another excuse.Priesthood was extremely comfortable, so nope. Look at Nietzche, even when he was likely an atheist he accepted a religious scholarship. >>35287562>The point is if multiverse was proven correctIt hasn't been, stopped reading.

>>35287316>If even the deist position is untenable, there is no way that any theist position, which takes an even greater leap of faith, can be correct.How is deism untenable anon? It would go against all observed phenomena ever recorded to assume something came from nothing, such an event would be, for all intents and purposes, supernatural.

>Except if you read even one you'd see there's objective/empirical evidence and accurate observations. If you doubt this, you could repeat the experiment, prove them wrong, and maybe win some recognition.And how many arguments in favor of the rationality of religion have you read and proven wrong? Such an achievement would surely win you some acclaim in the field of philosophy.

Again, you are unwilling to do the legwork involved and make unjustified general statements.

>I am saying that they all presume God is the most evolved being that has never evolved, sorry you're too stupid to understand that without me spelling that out for you.I have never heard of a religion that asserts God itself has evolved, which on is it?

>I am open to correction, please enlighten me as to this logically consistent and inerrant theistic theory. I can't really, as I'm not a theist. Though I don't presume to know everything and I reserve judgement on that I have no knowledge of.

>>35287736>How is deism untenable anon? It would go against all observed phenomena ever recorded to assume something came from nothing, such an event would be, for all intents and purposes, supernatural.There are scientific theories about the instability of "nothingness" (basically quantum mechanics). In layman's terms, the theory is that having no matter/energy is unstable for the universe, kind of like how certain elements like francium can exist but they are extremely reactive.

Deism is untenable because it claims absolute knowledge, but their position isn't a logical necessity (granted, it doesn't take the idiotic leaps of faith most religions do), nor is it backed by scientific theory/empirical evidence.

>Again, you are unwilling to do the legwork involved and make unjustified general statements.There is no reason I have to give every unproven assertion that is not a logical necessity any consideration- I can present endless unproven illogical theories like invisible undetectable teapots orbiting the Earth, but since these hypotheses are without evidence and are illogical you do not require "negative evidence" since I have no positive evidence to support my claims.>I have never heard of a religion that asserts God itself has evolved, which on is it?God is the "most evolved"- meaning all knowing, perfect, etc.

Is the concept that hard for you to understand?

>I can't say that there's objective proof for any theology, but I'm going to argue that there might be because you haven't read every single Holy book on Earth

>>35287724>Secular faith is about observing patterns/past experience>Religious faith has none of those redeeming qualities. Open a dictionary, thanks.Secular faith, and many of it's central tenets in current society, is largely based on rejection of observations and patterns in favor of ideals such as natural rights, equality between races/sexes, etc.Neither of the statements you made are found in any dictionary, it seems you are largely unfamiliar with what a dictionary is and the way in which they define words.

>You claimed I had no proof that the experiments by the collective scientific world were repeatable, which was obviously bullshit, sorry for calling you out.I never said you had no proof of ANY science being repeatable, just that you have no proof that much of scientific experimentation is repeatable.There is plenty of proof for certain historical events written about in the Bible, but this doesn't mean that the entirety of the Bible can be proven true.

>And if they had concluded that theism was irrational they would not state that because their life would be ruined/ended.Fair enough point, though there have been some very big disagreements within Christianity in particular that were potentially a death sentence. Luther made a huge risk in opposing Church doctrine, so it is not unheard of.

>WOW WHAT A FUCKING SURPRISE It is a surprise actually, as many priests never concerned themselves with the rationality or irrationality of religion at all. One can assume if one did take it upon themselves to prove the logical nature of their theology did so out of personal choice.

Though what am I saying, you've already invoked the genetic fallacy.

>Priesthood was extremely comfortable.It really wasn't anon, the various vows priests took ensured they would live a simple and rather restricted life. Vows of celibacy and poverty are not to be taken lightly anon.

>>35288201>Secular faith, and many of it's central tenets in current society...faithf?TH/Submitnoun1.complete trust or confidence in someone or something."this restores one's faith in politicians"synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; Moreantonyms: mistrust2.strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine"she gave her life for her faith"

>I never said you had no proof of ANY science being repeatable, just that you have no proof that much of scientific experimentation is repeatable.There is plenty of proof for certain historical events written about in the Bible, but this doesn't mean that the entirety of the Bible can be proven true.Except, unlike miracles, scientific experiments claim to be repeatable and do not contradict the laws of physics.

>Luther made a huge risk in opposing Church doctrine, so it is not unheard of.Challenging the abolition of sins YOU HAVE YET TO COMMIT for compensation is a lot different than completely undermining royal and religious authority.

>Fallacy of originYour fallacious appeal to authority is somehow justified because I distrust the objectivity of people who would lose their life/livelihood if they adopted an alternative viewpoint (atheism)?>It really wasn't anon, the various vows priests took ensured they would live a simple and rather restricted life. Vows of celibacy and poverty are not to be taken lightly anon.Compared to being a serf? It was great.

>>35287952>In layman's terms, the theory is that having no matter/energy is unstable for the universe, kind of like how certain elements like francium can exist but they are extremely reactive.You honestly think Francium's instability is because there is no energy within it, do you have no idea of what radioactive decay is? I'll give you a hint, it's not because too little energy causes instability.

>Deism is untenable because it claims absolute knowledge, but their position isn't a logical necessity (granted, it doesn't take the idiotic leaps of faith most religions do), nor is it backed by scientific theory/empirical evidence.It is quite certainly a logical necessity, and can be easily derived from conservation of mass-energy and causality itself.

>There is no reason I have to give every unproven assertion that is not a logical necessity any considerationI agree, but you must consider something before asserting it's falsehood. Lest we end up denying heliocentrism again.

>are illogicalI'll bite, how exactly is an undetectable teapot orbiting Earth illogical in itself? (You'll remember that "invisible" wasn't part of Russell's original analogy, seems like you added that on to support a weak point).

>I can't say that there's objective proof for any theology, but I'm going to argue that there might be because you haven't read every single Holy book on EarthYes, I am.I'm actually doing the same thing you claim to when trying to explain "truth" to religious people, trying to show you that ignorance is not a substitute for observed knowledge when it comes to making assertions.

>>35288475>complete trust or confidence in someone or something.Such as the methodological rigor and honesty of those making scientific claims. Faith.

>Except, unlike miracles, scientific experiments claim to be repeatable and do not contradict the laws of physics.Oh well they claim to be repeatable, that's great. I can shoot lasers out of my eyes, come over and I'll show you any time :^)

>Challenging the abolition of sins YOU HAVE YET TO COMMIT for compensation is a lot different than completely undermining royal and religious authority. Actually it's not really, Luther's actions very directly undermined religious authority. It's about as big a challenge to the Church one could make.

>Your fallacious appeal to authority is somehow justified because I distrust the objectivity of people who would lose their life/livelihood if they adopted an alternative viewpoint (atheism)?You believe an evolutionary biologist wouldn't lose their reputation and livelihood if they came out in support of young-Earth creationism? They'd be laughed out of any academic institution on the planet.

>Compared to being a serf? It was great.Why do you assume this?Serfs lived quite well (outside Russia, as they're subhuman) and could fuck, own property, and generally live their life as they saw fit as long as they worked for their lord (or they weren't forbidden from doing so at least).

>>35288567>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experimenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectionhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEr-t17m2Fo>>35288713Francium's instability is twofold:1. Electron shielding (many electron shells)2. It has 1 valence electronThis combines to make a ridiculously reactive element. It was an analogy, not a direct comparison.

>I agree, but you must consider something before asserting it's falsehood. Lest we end up denying heliocentrism again.Deism is not a logical necessity as in it is not the most logical and consistent theory for the origin of the universe. See Sean M. Carroll link above>I agree, but you must consider something before asserting it's falsehood. Lest we end up denying heliocentrism again.Yes, but putting a new spin on theism doesn't mean any assertions from proponents of a new religion are any more rational.

>I'll bite, how exactly is an undetectable teapot orbiting Earth illogical in itself? (You'll remember that "invisible" wasn't part of Russell's original analogy, seems like you added that on to support a weak point).Assuming the teapot had any gas inside of it the pressure would push outwards, shatterng it :PBut seriously, no one has claimed to have launched a teapot into space, nor does anyone have any motivation to do so, and to attempt to do so would be very expensive.

>I'm actually doing the same thing you claim to when trying to explain "truth" to religious people, trying to show you that ignorance is not a substitute for observed knowledge when it comes to making assertions.You're basically putting forward the principle that I have to consider every serious assertion that has no empirical evidence, even if there are alternative theories supported by objective evidence. I am basically saying that any given theory that is not founded upon facts and is not the only potentially logical answer can be discarded without a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

>>35288958>who created god?Nothing, the creation of God is a violation of causality. You could also argue the universe came from a violation of causality, and one would then term this event (the violation of fundamental laws) the prime mover.

>>35289054>Such as the methodological rigor and honesty of those making scientific claims. Faith.Except I have evidence of the rigor and reliability of scientific methods/claims.

>Oh well they claim to be repeatable, that's great. I can shoot lasers out of my eyes, come over and I'll show you any time :^)They claim to be repeatable, and in the vast majority of cases, actually are.>about as big a challenge to the Church one could makeAs I said, without being killed outright.>You believe an evolutionary biologist wouldn't lose their reputation and livelihood if they came out in support of young-Earth creationism? They'd be laughed out of any academic institution on the planet.>Equating being laughed at with being burned at the stake

>Why do you assume that priesthood>serfdom1. Authority2. Longer life expectancy3. Work might be mentally demanding or boring, but generally not physically demanding (nothing like harvesting a field all day with a scythe)

>>35289114>This combines to make a ridiculously reactive element. It was an analogy, not a direct comparison.It was a hugely flawed analogy, to the point where it is almost the complete opposite situation of the that you were attempting to explain.

>Deism is not a logical necessity as in it is not the most logical and consistent theory for the origin of the universe. See Sean M. Carroll link above>An hour longThread will 404 before I'm finished watching that, though I'll watch it later. I'll hold my disagreement about it's logical necessity for the moment.

>Yes, but putting a new spin on theism doesn't mean any assertions from proponents of a new religion are any more rational.Not every religion is directly derived from another, so this argument doesn't really apply. To say Buddhism and Mormonism are the same thing and therefore both irrational because Judaism is irrational is simply nonsense.

>But seriously, no one has claimed to have launched a teapot into space, nor does anyone have any motivation to do so, and to attempt to do so would be very expensive.Fair enough, though I wouldn't say it's illogical in itself.

>You're basically putting forward the principle that I have to consider every serious assertion that has no empirical evidence, even if there are alternative theories supported by objective evidence.Not at all, you can obviously hold whatever opinion you want without regard to other beliefs. But to assert something is bullshit, you have to back that up.

> I am basically saying that any given theory that is not founded upon facts and is not the only potentially logical answer can be discarded without a great deal of evidence to the contrary.I wouldn't say it can be discarded, but you are certainly not obliged to entertain it.

>Noah's ark the "fairytale" can acually be proven by having someone build an ark and put animals in it which can be done right now in our life time >evolution theory still cannot and will never beTOP KEEEEEK!

>>35289514>Not every religion is directly derived from another, so this argument doesn't really apply. To say Buddhism and Mormonism are the same thing and therefore both irrational because Judaism is irrational is simply nonsense.The vast majority assume an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being(s). I'm arguing against the main tenents of theism, not whether or not Jesus was actually divine.

>Not at all, you can obviously hold whatever opinion you want without regard to other beliefs. But to assert something is bullshit, you have to back that up.Like I said, all these religions/theologies/mythologies have common qualities which I am refuting on the whole. They're the ones making the claim, I am saying that none of their claims are rational/substantiated.

>>35289660No, faggot, what I am saying is that if I could provide people objective knowledge (even if it is contradictory to my position) I would do it, even if it had negative effects on their happiness.

I am saying that adherence to reality/reason/logic/empiricism is more important than promoting happiness.

>>35289287>Except I have evidence of the rigor and reliability of scientific methods/claims.There is also evidence of scientific rigor lacking in certain studies, one can't simply take claims at face-value as there have been plenty of bullshit studies, usually around controversial issues.

>They claim to be repeatable, and in the vast majority of cases, actually are.Except you are taking this on faith unless you actually repeat the experiment yourself.

>Equating being laughed at with being burned at the stakeBoth are things that will seriously discourage someone from airing their real views.

>1. Authority>2. Longer life expectancy>3. Work might be mentally demanding or boring, but generally not physically demanding (nothing like harvesting a field all day with a scythe)Fair enough, but there were significant downsides to life as a priest as well. It was and still is a rather demanding life.

>>35289847I am open to empirical evidence that contradicts my beliefs. Excuse me for being super close-minded to your world of higher forms.

>There is also evidence of scientific rigor lacking in certain studies, one can't simply take claims at face-value as there have been plenty of bullshit studies, usually around controversial issues.Yes, but unlike religion, there is actually a rigor to science that discovers the bullshit studies, at least a good portion of them.

>Except you are taking this on faith unless you actually repeat the experiment yourself.I don't have to repeat every experiment on Earth to reach the conclusion that most experiments are repeatable. Nor do I have to fuck every woman on Earth to assume that most women of age can get pregnant if they aren't using birth control

>>35290151I am claiming that the idea of an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient being is logically contradictory and not necessary as an explanation for the origins of the universe. I am also disputing the theistic claim that they have objective knowledge of the origins of the universe- they have no evidence that is not take on faith to substantiate this claim.

Fuck off. For humanity to believe absolutely in one fundamental truth is folly. As humans all we do is speculate. Ironically our brightest minds come to a conclusion that's not far off from our past.

It's ironic but we shouldn't just post up shop and conclude that a bunch of men from the past absolutely know exactly what's going to happen in the future. Especially if you know anything about the early days of Christianity and especially Muslims. All these prophets and we don't know a damn thing about the future. At least science has given us a glimpse.

>>35290382I've been over this shit before.1. We don't know for certain there's an infinite number of universes2. If something does not exist in this universe, that is the definition of nonexistence, whether or not there are square circles or sky Jews in another universe has no bearing on the reality of this one3. If a God in another universe does not have matter/energy in this universe, for all intensive purposes it doesn't exist or effect you

>>35290495>You have no evidence that God doesn't exist either, why are you an atheist then?You have no evidence an undetectable homosexual unicorn isn't fucking you in the ass right now- but that's an unproven illogical assertion and can therefore be discarded immediately. >>35290575>"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible."Faith is an unreliable process, CTRL+F unreliable if you want to see my posts about this.>>35290580>If it has no matter, energy, or detectable influence it still existsYeah, but, not having matter or energy is kind of the definition of nonexistence isn't it?

You seem to be mistaken OP, the fact that I believe in the multiverse is precisely why I don't believe in god. If this was the only universe it would be very difficult to explain how seemingly fine tuned for life it is.

>>35290839>no one is born a theistThat sure explains the hundreds of religions around the world. Even the most backwards of tribes have religion. But they've just been brainwashed by the church and their parents right?

>>35290862No, that isn't quite right. Even that guy slinging a dead squirrel against a canvas required intelligence. Atheists don't even believe in that. But I do understand what you're trying to convey. And applaud it. Because there's no way in fuck this universe just created its self from absolutely nothing.

>>35291100Soon robots will be smarter than humans so we don't have to do any more thinking! Computers can just make all the decisions for us because they are always logical! Humans are good in nature, all the wars, poverty, conflict and hate in the world are just result of religion! Don't you get it!

>>35291077>if we can't detect it, it doesn't existIf there are no means of detecting it (or could ever be means of detecting it) then it does not exist/Obviously technology is limited in today's world.>Theists>Not generally adherents of a certain religionSorry if synonymous terms confuse you. People are "born atheists", and what I mean by this is religion is not a biological necessity/law for humanity, but there actually is a genetic component in religiosity.

>>35291377>time doesn't exist>individuality doesn't exist>knowledge doesn't exist>dimensions don't exist>perception doesn't exist>science doesn't existMost of these are concepts, like "government", they don't literally exist in the physical world- although there are "symptoms" of these concepts, like watches, the Gadsden flag, etc.Are you actually retarded, or just a troll?

>>35291497So you're saying governments don't exist, that they're just a collection of flags, people and rules? Just like humans don't exist, they're just a collection of cells? Cells don't exist, they're just molecules!How does this make sense in your head

>>35291634Governments are a conceptual grouping of individuals. Individuals who become a part of the government are not altered physically (i.e. they become arsenic based) during or after their service in the government.

Humans is the conceptual aggregation of all the real, physical atoms, molecules, macro-molecules, tissues, organs, and systems that make up the organism we call a human.

>>35291497I'm curious about what you think of the argument of the 'necessary first cause,' and subsequent 'possible cause.' You argued this earlier but only in short sentences as you were addressing other things.

If our universe, as it is currently, is a result of cause and effect, would it be logical to say that ultimately you would have to reach a first cause that transcends subsequent causes, and doesn't require a cause to it?Wouldn't an infinite regression be illogical?

>>35292152Well, I don't know why our universe was finely-tuned, nor do I know if the laws of physics were exactly the same 13.7 billion years ago, but I do have an opinion on the prime mover argument/infinite regression argument.

The prime mover is basically the idea that "something" (a creator, initiator, catalyst etc.) must always have existed, but I don't see why theists consider that position logical, but the position that the universe must always have existed is illogical- it's a false dichotomy as far as I'm concerned.

To my knowledge, we don't have any evidence about what exactly happened prior to the Big Bang, but I don't think that a prime mover is the answer, it's not proven and it doesn't seem logically compelling to me- it doesn't even pass Occam's razor because, as far as I'm concerned, an all-powerful and all-knowing being isn't exactly the simplest and most logical answer.

>>35292605I'd like to clarify that I'm not saying"The prime mover argument rubs me the wrong way, therefore it is wrong."

I just don't see how "God was always there" is any more logical than "the universe was always there"- like I alluded to earlier the universe might have existed as "nothing" for awhile, but according to some people who are probably smarter than I am the concept of "nothing" can be very complicated.

>Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?>Then he is not omnipotent.>Is he able, but not willing?>Then he is malevolent.>Is he both able and willing?>Then whence cometh evil?>Is he neither able nor willing?>Then why call him God?

how can anyone possibly believe in god when epicurius debunked god centuries ago

>>35300763this falls apart the moment you realize that God is not willing to prevent evil because it is needed to allow his creations free choice. It becomes irrelevant mainly because by allowing free choice he allows his creations to show genuine love and compassion rather than follow through on a program. It becomes destoryed when you realize that according to Christian doctrine we are in a stage of creation where he is destroying evil, and eventually it will all be purged leaving only the genuine love and compassion he wanted.

My view: Christians are wrong that we need to believe in God to motivate morality. This article refutes that point very well http://lesswrong.com/lw/ky/fake_morality/

Atheists are also wrong that science can explain morality, or the existence of the universe. And they do make up a lot of bullshit like multiverse theory to make up for their inability to do the latter.

Mathematician Edward Nelson has some very interesting writings on Christianity and mathematics.

>>35301241addresses, but even by his own admission, all he does is render the idea of a good God plausible. Having read a summary of his arguments, I still think that this problem is a fatal flaw in Chrsitianity

>>35281612If you're suggesting that the supreme intelligence is somewhere within the multiverse, then that supreme intelligence cannot be attributed to God. An alien or demi-god perhaps, but that supreme intelligence isn't the highest reality.

If all the proofs for Christianity were limited to observations in the natural world, yes.

That is not the case, however.

What does do is rely on what is called revelation which comes principally from Christ and what he taught, the prophets, eye whitness accounts, the arise of morality and ethics in conscious and sentient beings, the experience of numinous awe, etc. Proof of the Christian God comes from outside the natural universe. There are other worlds than these friend.

Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.